Good job, Boston Jury

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by ArtDecade, Apr 8, 2015.

  1. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    686
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    That was mostly a joke playing off of Max's comment, sheesh.

    When I have more brainpower to work through your response and figure out what you're actually trying to say, I will respond.
     
  2. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    25,914
    Likes Received:
    2,772
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    There's no opinion here, you're obviously trying to make it seem like Narad said a lot more than he did.

    You're nitpicking slight colloquialisms in attempt to make it seem like somehow he's talking positively about terrorists to place yourself on better moral ground when questioning his opinion.

    In not one, but two posts. It's so absurd that I honestly thought you were joking. :lol:

    But that's fine.

    In case you didn't notice, no one is actually questioning your opinion on the death penalty. :nuts:
     
  3. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,995
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Give them credit in that their plans are not spur of the moment decisions -- not to generalize, but with US defenses what they are, these attacks are often meticulously planned out well in advance. That is to say that anyone committing these acts knows full well that death awaits.

    Now, let's think about that for a minute. If someone is willing to throw their life away for a religious cause, then they must have strong convictions that they will be justly rewarded in accordance to those believes. Are they going to reap those rewards on earth, living their lives? No. The best way to fast-track that is to be executed immediately.

    Your posts sound like the typical emotional response: they killed some of us, let's kill him! Like eye-for-an-eye, let him experience some of the pain we experienced. But clearly, that's not the case - he gets the painless death he looks forward to, and you're left befuddled because the biggest hammer you have didn't instill the fear/remorse/sadness that it might to someone who was just trying to rob a convenience store for drug money.

    Is the death penalty a suitable punishment here? Hell, I don't know. Maybe it is the most fitting. Personally I think he probably anguishes more in the appeals process than simply going to the gallows, but who knows - I can't say I've really followed the suspect's details (and that's intentional -- I'm heavily opposed to giving these guys media attention.) I just think it's probably worthwhile to think it through, even if it only means reaching the same conclusion. Fair enough?

    Also, terrorists are so smart and hard-working and brave. Mad props to terrorists, yo.
     
  4. michblanch

    michblanch SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    26
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Houston


    The above was the first comment after your post. So I don't think my reaction was a reach.
     
  5. donzilla

    donzilla SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    It's crazy. Having served in Afghanistan..and then coming home and having things like this happen here is heartbreaking. It's bad enough that anything bad happens any where truth be told..but the bigger truth is bad things are gonna happen no matter what..because some folks will always have their reasons why doing bad things is ok. I don't really care what they do with the guy. I'll know what I think but I'll keep that to myself. I just can't get over how bad that bombing broke my heart knowing what people lost that day.
     
  6. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Considering you were literally the only one who chose to interpret it that way I think it kind of was. :lol:
     
  7. Eliguy666

    Eliguy666 V's are Just Better

    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I don't get why people are justifying the death penalty by saying they can't empathize with those who are given it. That's not an argument for the death penalty, that's a personal failure.

    The fact of the matter is that there are no benefits to the death penalty. It's expensive, immoral, useless at deterring crime, useless at keeping people safe, and often painful. I don't see how killing somebody through the state isn't murder. I can't understand the vindictive pleasure that people gain by causing hurt.

    There is nothing acceptable about this sentence. Rape isn't some kind of tool that you can justify using pragmatically. The cultural idea that sexual assault is a fair part of the criminal justice system is barbaric, thoughtless, and evil.
    If you've been sexually assaulted, you know this. If you haven't, you don't get to have a ****ing say in it. End of story.
     
  8. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,995
    Likes Received:
    1,540
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    "Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population."

    Seriously...how is that even possible?
     
  9. TheFranMan

    TheFranMan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Appeals, pretty simple. Not to mention they're often housed in solitary sections that have to be specially maintained separate from the general population. So that drives up start-up costs and daily maintenance costs since the costs of wage or salary/inmate are much higher due to more individualized attention.

    And I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I wrote my thesis on the death penalty and have plenty of data on anybody's questions if interested.

    People love having knee-jerk reactions. "He killed someone, he should be killed!"

    Show me another crime in America where the punishment is identical to the crime. For mass murderers, how could you even create an eye-for-an-eye punishment that would accomplish that purpose? Also, people often want to apply punishment individually without considering that punishment is systematic; any precedents set must apply not only to this instance, but also other instances systematically. That key point often gets lost in the discussion about what one "deserves" for their crime.
     
  10. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    I'm not saying that you're wrong on this point, or that I disagree, but I feel like an element is missing here.

    I don't know much about any criminal justice system, let alone America's specifically, but isn't it the role of lawyers and judges to provide nuance (legal, social, philosophical, ideological, etc) where a system can't? I tend to lean pretty heavily on mandatory sentencing when I have this discussion, because I think it's one of the most 'extreme' examples we have of systemic sentencing. About fifteen years ago in Australia (specifically in the Northern Territory and Western Australia) we had a situation where mandatory sentencing for juveniles was used for similar reasons that people use to justify the death penalty: a really harsh law and an unrepenting system should, in theory, dissuade criminal behaviour. In the end, we disproportionately imprisoned disadvantaged and vulnerable teenagers, and it led to some sentences that are so far removed from the concept of justice that it was ridiculous:

    Again, I realise you're not arguing in favour of a 'purely' systematic method of law, but I think we as a society look towards individualised punishments because that's just as important to the role of lawyers and judges as maintaining the system.

    In terms of how all this applies to the death penalty and the Boston bombers, it might be worth looking to another example of a terrorist bombing in the US.

    So, it seems there were competing systems in this case, not that there was a conflict between them. In the end, the harshest system was used, though it might be argued that is was the less 'just' system in terms of who it represented: McVeigh was convicted for the deaths of 8 people, not 168, because that was the best way to deliver the maximum sentence allowed by one system. I guess the question then becomes whether or not it was effective.

    On his sentence, McVeigh had the following to say:

    And on lethal injection specifically:

    I imagine we'll wind up seeing a lot of quotes similar to these attached to Tsarnaev. Unfortunately, whether we favoured systemic or individualised punishments is probably irrelevant to the people that commit these crimes. They've already internally justified attacking civilians in response to government actions, determined that the criminal justice system is hypocritical in its application of the law*, and are at peace with receiving the harshest possible penalties. As shown above, introducing harsher penalties creates injustice. Our system and society is kind of incapable of dealing with that reality, so knee-jerk reactions are kind of an understandable response to a frustrating situation that is impossible to solve.

    *I interpret that last McVeigh quote as him pointing out that doctors are not legally allowed to assist a person in committing painless suicide, which is why so many people commit 'suicide by cop'.
     

Share This Page